Literature DB >> 29258869

Tactile recognition of visual stimuli: Specificity versus generalization of perceptual learning.

Gabriel Arnold1, Malika Auvray2.   

Abstract

Sensory substitution devices aim at assisting a deficient sensory modality by means of another sensory modality. For instance, to perceive with visual-to-tactile devices, users learn to recognize visual stimuli through their tactile conversion. A crucial characteristic of learning lies in the ability to generalize, that is, the ability to extend the acquired perceptual abilities to both new stimuli and new perceptual conditions. The study reported here investigated the perceptual learning of tactile alphanumerical stimuli. The learning protocol consisted in alternating a repeated list of symbols with lists of new symbols. A first experiment revealed that, when each list consisted of 4 stimuli, recognition performance improved over time only for the repeated list. This result suggests that learning a small set of stimuli involves stimulus-specific learning strategies, preventing generalization. A second experiment revealed that increasing to six the set of learned stimuli results in higher generalization abilities. This result can be explained by greater difficulties in using stimulus-specific strategies in this case, thereby favouring the use of generalization strategies. Feature variability also appeared to be important to achieve generalization. Thus, as in visual perceptual learning, the involvement of stimulus-specific versus general strategies depends on task difficulty and feature variability. A third experiment highlighted that tactile perceptual learning generalizes to changes in orientation. These results are discussed in terms of brain plasticity as they influence the design of learning methods for using sensory substitution devices, with the aim to compensate visual impairments.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Generalization; Learning strategies; Multisensory perception; Perceptual learning; Sensory substitution

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29258869     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2017.11.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  1 in total

1.  Testing Vision Is Not Testing For Vision.

Authors:  Eli Peli
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 3.283

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.